quotes and their meanings
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king” - Erasmus
I am starting a series of some favourite quotes. Feel free to interpret them. This one is particularly open-ended.
Applied to the content of this particular blog, it has implications for the way we run organizations. Our cultural captivity, including that of our leadership, to the institutional idea of church, as opposed to that of movements.
Comments
14 Responses to “quotes and their meanings”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
One day out from a federal election here in Australia, my thoughts turned to politics as I read this quote. I think it paints a beautiful picture of what has been happening here and in some other western countries like the US in recent years. As the general populace descends into the ‘blindness’ of affluent self-interest, leaders who emerge with a narrow (one-eyed) view of humanity, society and nationality end up in the place of ‘king’. Wake up O sleepers, open your eyes; search for a king with broader vision.
(Woops, creeping into political comment - not cool! Sorry)
Not at all MArty, great comment.
I like what Marty says. especially with the religious right here in Aus and in the states. a leader with a myopic view of what is right and moral from a christian perspective will often win the vote and respect from well meaning but blind Christians who are easily led by anything carrying the name ‘Christian’ as opposed to developing an understanding of God’s Kingdom on earth.
Shalom…
Kieran
The fundamental error with this is the Christendom model, instead of seeing the Kingdom of God as an invisible empire.
Just as Calvin ordered “heretics” (ie those who didn’t line up on every point of doctrine) burned at the stake because of the idea of “Christian empire” with “Christian rules” enforced by a “Christian government”, the religious right think belief and personal morality should be legislated and enforced by law. It misses the subversive nature of the invisible kingdom, where goodness is the fruit of an invisible Spirit.
When people wallow in complete ignorance of something someone who has less ignorance will be viewed as extremely wise, even though that person is far from it.
Lots of ways to look at this…I wonder, Alan, what context Erasmus had in writing it? Maybe closer to Janet’s idea?
The obvious meaning of the quote to me is that when people are “blind” they will follow someone of very flawed vision… we look for a leader who will see the world for us… we want meaning, a vision… and we’ll follow those who provide it.
If we think of Germany when Hitler came to power there was crushing inflation and poverty and there were so many looking for a way out of an economic mess… it wasn’t too hard to whip up a crowd with appealing slogans and a whole lot of scapegoating… the vision of a flawed leader was a whole lot more appealing than despair and lostness.
Although in the Western world we’re not herding people into concentration camps, particularly since 9/11 you start hearing the slogans about “protecting our way of life”, “protecting from extremists” “war on terror” etc. etc…. ironically associated with erosion of “our way of life” (eg weakening legal protections such as presumption of innocence for those accused of terrorism).
If the land is totally dark it’s the fellow with the best hearing who becomes king.
Or the lad with evolutionary echo location.
I read a great short story recently by H.G. Wells called, ‘The Country of the Blind’.
It takes the quote above and places an explorer into a remote region of the Ecuador Andes, untouched for many generations, where all the inhabitants are blind. How hard could it by for a two-eyed man to be king…?
You can read the full story at: online-literature.com/wellshg/3/
Here’s a snipet:
“He tried at first on several occasions to tell them of sight. ‘Look you here, you people,’ he said. ‘There are things you do not understand in me.’
“Once or twice one or two of them attended to him; they sat with faces downcast and ears turned intelligently towards him, and he did his best to tell them what it was to see. Among his hearers was a girl, with eyelids less red and sunken than the others, so that one could almost fancy she was hiding eyes, whom especially he hoped to persuade.
He spoke of the beauties of sight, of watching the mountains, of the sky and the sunrise, and they heard him with amused incredulity that presently became condemnatory. They told him there were indeed no mountains at all, but that the end of the rocks where the llamas grazed was indeed the end of the world; thence sprang a cavernous roof of the universe, from which the dew and the avalanches fell; and when he maintained stoutly the world had neither end nor roof such as they supposed, they said his thoughts were wicked.
So far as he could describe sky and clouds and stars to them it seemed to them a hideous void, a terrible blankness in the place of the smooth roof to things in which they believed–it was an article of faith with them that the cavern roof was exquisitely smooth to the touch. He saw that in some manner he shocked them, and gave up that aspect of the matter altogether, and tried to show them the practical value of sight.”
Well worth a quick read if you get a chance.
But everything did not love him back
from the book Maniac Magee
McNab could already feel his strikeout record fading to a mere grain in the sandlot of history
“He tried at first on several occasions to tell them of sight. ‘Look you here, you people,’ he said. ‘There are things you do not understand in me.’
Theres a nigger in the woodpile.
What does the nigger refer to in the saying I believe its a type of white ant or a spade
Some interesting ideas I strung together after reading the following book:
Goleman, D. R., (1985) Vital Lies, Simple Truths: the psychology of self-deception Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. London. UK
(A psychology text-book drawing on many traditions of psychoanalysis).
As individuals and as groups, we have attentional mechanisms that create defensive “gaps” in awareness. Some would describe this fact as part of our inherited sinful nature, something that could be healed and restored through faith in Christ. These “blind spots” are called “lacunas” from the Latin meaning “gap” or “hole” and could be blamed for much of the dark doings in our world. Lacunas divert attention from the facts of reality. Lacunas are like black holes of the mind. They steer awareness away from what is going on, so that it is as if we do not see something that we do not want to. We defend ourselves from something we do not wish to deal with.
Communication is basically a repair process. When we reach an understanding, I grasp your schemas and you grasp mine. Although not a perfect match, it’s a step closer. Over a long period of time, schemas can become much more closely aligned… a single word, gesture, or emphasis can evoke in one’s friend/partner a fully understood statement. The more schemas we share, the less needs to be verbalised.
If a group wishes to share a schema, they do not have to adopt those of a single strong leader. A set of schemas in the workings of the group can achieve it. With or without a clear leader, the group members adhere to a common understanding. Christian community can function well if the group adheres to the common understanding that the Lord is the one who brings a truthful perspective to the facts, so that the perfect/most beneficial things are done.
However, if the community shares schemas, they also share lacunas in common!
It can be subject to a realm of common experience which is never articulated or brought into the open, but which influences and affects the group as an entity.
In our imperfection, we can operate something like a double standard communication system. One level deals openly with the outward workings of the group, and the other deals in a more covert fashion on the unarticulated, though commonly understood, anxieties of the group. The lacunas here work to minimise anxiety… bring a false peace.
The group’s reality is constructed by joint schemas, and the schemas could at times be jointly operating lacunas! Loyalty to the group could mean that members are ‘forced’ into feeling that they cannot ask embarrassing questions, question weak arguments, or bring hard facts or reality to counter flimsily constructed arguments. How great is that darkness! This subtle illusory situation makes it hard to diagnose and treat.
However, when they work at their best, groups can make better decisions than just one person could… two heads are better than one etc! Critical thinking needs to be in operation for a healthy group experience… ie. gaining wisdom by asking important questions. We must never sacrifice the truth to preserve illusion, but rather, we should seek the truth that can shatter shared illusions. We can worship in spirit and in TRUTH.
Perhaps this explains some of the dynamics of cultural captivity and the way some organisations are healthy or unhealthy in their processes?
Lucy J